Things that make you go...Hmmmm....(outrageous calorie burn)

Options
1…78101213

Replies

  • snowbike
    snowbike Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    From this morning.

    IMG_20121129_135542.jpg

    I should note that I only ran for 56 minutes. The rest was just walking.

    Seeing your height and weight, taking average v02 you would need to be pushing 100% MHR to do this. <not worthy>

    Have you set your vo2 on the polar? if so what to?
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    Options
    I burned over a thousand calories before 7:30 this morning.

    haters14.jpg
  • _Wits_
    _Wits_ Posts: 1,286 Member
    Options
    Yeah I don't care what people log...
  • Bob314159
    Bob314159 Posts: 1,178 Member
    Options
    I burned 287 calories scrolling down this thread
  • _Wits_
    _Wits_ Posts: 1,286 Member
    Options
    I burned 287 calories scrolling down this thread

    I burned 289. I win.
  • Bob314159
    Bob314159 Posts: 1,178 Member
    Options
    I burned 287 calories scrolling down this thread

    I burned 289. I win.

    Only if you eat your calories - or you enter starvation mode and die
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    I delete those people who log checking the mail, washing the dishes, house cleaning, ironing, playing an instrument, kneading bread....... ok I have to stop

    Kneading bread is in the database? I wish I had known that last week. About ten minutes in and my forearms were on fire.

    That's what I was thinking. I logged my Thanksgiving food prep as cooking. I guess if someone were to delete me for that, then I would be like, "I didn't want you anyway!" or "Take this friendship and shove it!" :laugh:

    Ditto. I log it. It makes sense to log it if you're doing something for longer than usual or something completely out of the ordinary.
    sigh, not this again.

    As long as you all logged it with the understanding that 90% of that calorie burn was your BMR then I suppose go ahead. but understand that the prep work was prob like 100cal/hour tops.

    uum no it's not actually. you do what works for YOU but don't assume you know what went into the activities that people choose to log.
    your BMR is 150-180cal/hour from existing. Let me guess, did the calculator you use give a number like 200-250cal/hour for this kitchen prep work and kneading bread? Congrats, you just discovered how to disillusion yourself cause you actually only burn like 50-80cal for that hour.

    I don't need to know what went into the activities, I just have an understanding of how the bodies work. And noone is that individual. Sorry, but you're not the special calorie burning snowflake you seem to think you are.



    Just FTR, MFP gave me a burn of 187 for one hour. That's pretty much the same burn as simply standing for an hour. It's about 2/3 of the burn for walking at a slow pace. I don't believe that I burn fewer calories doing something than I would by *not* doing anything. I'll burn 74 calories an hour by simply being alive and breathing. My BMR is 1780. Divide that by 24 and you get about 74 calories an hour by simply doing nothing at all.

    ETA: Also, this was from preparing Thanksgiving dinner, which was actually closer to 3 hours of work. I normally spend about 15-20 minutes preparing dinner and do not normally log food prep or cleaning.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    To get an idea from the maths...

    To burn over 1000 cals an hour weighing under 180lbs you would need to be pushing over 87% MHR for the whole 60 mins.
    to burn over 1000 cals an hour weighing at 100lbs you would need to be pushing over 95% MHR for the whole 60 mins.

    I'm a competitive cyclist, I train VERY VERY hard. There is no way I could sustain 95% MHR for 60 mins. 10 - 25mins max!

    I'd be interested to know what formula you're using for this.

    I don't believe there's a direct relationship between heart rate and calories burned. They're indirectly correlated. If you do some amount of work, you will burn calories and your heart rate may increase. For certain ranges, there are formula that can fairly accurately estimate your caloric burn based on your heart rate, but there's no direct relationship.

    I've experienced some aerobic fitness gains this year. I can now run for an hour with my heart rate around 132 at a pace that kept my heart rate around 170 earlier this year. That doesn't mean I'm burning less calories. Well, I am, but it's because I've also lost some weight. If I had eaten at a small surplus during this time, I would be burning more calories at a lower heart rate.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    The other night, I heard something about laughing burning something like 1.3 calories per second.

    That's more than 60 calories a minute.

    I doubted that figure very much.
  • michelle1973nc
    michelle1973nc Posts: 26 Member
    Options
    That's awesome.

    I am by no means an expert. I try to figure out my cals on MFP but there isn't a place for the elevation of the treadmill. I was told once that jogging on the treadmill needs to be above incline of 1 to be the same as being outside on a flat surface. I try to never have it less than 2. I have walked/jogged through a full movie with the incline at no less than 4 and burned over 1000 cals (per treadmill) but MFP is way off.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    The other night, I heard something about laughing burning something like 1.3 calories per second.

    That's more than 60 calories a minute.

    I doubted that figure very much.

    You've never seen me laugh! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    You gotta put your *ALL* into it. No pain; no gain! :tongue:
  • footiechick82
    footiechick82 Posts: 1,203 Member
    Options
    The best way to do it - get a heart rate monitor. I've asked for one for Christmas. Right now, I use the 'calorie counter' on the machines I use.

    If it's not there, I will research and see what the "average calorie burn" is for a class I take or exercise I do and base it on how hard I worked - not very efficient, but I usually log the lower end of what I burn so I don't over eat.
  • Graceious1
    Graceious1 Posts: 716 Member
    Options
    I have an HRM and burn around 900 cal with 45 minutes of running and and doing martial arts for an hour and a half I burn over a 1000. Would you consider that outrageous?
  • terrymbradley
    terrymbradley Posts: 52
    Options
    Sometimes, I blame the MFP calculator. I use rock-climbing as my main exercise of choice. Usually, I am at the gym for at least 2 hours rock climbing. If I log those 2 hours though, MFP says I burned between 1500 calories or more. Doubting this, I usually shave off 30 minutes to account for the time I spend on the ground, but it still seems too much.

    If I were to assume that MFP was giving me a completely accurate burn, I would be eating a lot. I'm looking into buying a HRM so that I can get a better idea of what I burned during a workout.

    I guess, what I'm saying is that they may just be taking MFP's numbers for face value and assume they are spot on.

    Here is another calculator that I use...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wt824D1Bqg
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    The other night, I heard something about laughing burning something like 1.3 calories per second.

    That's more than 60 calories a minute.

    I doubted that figure very much.

    You've never seen me laugh! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    You gotta put your *ALL* into it. No pain; no gain! :tongue:

    lol

    I might buy it if it didn't take 10 minutes at full speed on the elliptical to burn 10 calories a minute!
  • snowbike
    snowbike Posts: 153 Member
    Options


    I'd be interested to know what formula you're using for this.

    I don't believe there's a direct relationship between heart rate and calories burned. They're indirectly correlated. If you do some amount of work, you will burn calories and your heart rate may increase. For certain ranges, there are formula that can fairly accurately estimate your caloric burn based on your heart rate, but there's no direct relationship.

    I've experienced some aerobic fitness gains this year. I can now run for an hour with my heart rate around 132 at a pace that kept my heart rate around 170 earlier this year. That doesn't mean I'm burning less calories. Well, I am, but it's because I've also lost some weight. If I had eaten at a small surplus during this time, I would be burning more calories at a lower heart rate.

    This is the one ...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    This closely matches my HRM.

    IM now wondering if this is right! I am currently trying to gain a few pounds and am struggling. If a 130 avg heart rate can burn a 1000 cals I would be burning nearly double on my cycle rides that my HRM.

    I assumed that as you become more fitter you get more efficient with the same calories... This looks (from what you say) wrong.

    This also might be the reason Im not gain as MFP says I should be.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    IM now wondering if this is right! I am currently trying to gain a few pounds and am struggling. If a 130 avg heart rate can burn a 1000 cals I would be burning nearly double on my cycle rides that my HRM.

    Maybe someone else can weigh in here?
    I'm afraid I can't really give advice about gaining weight, since all I have to do is eat what I want and I gain (mostly fat and water) very fast.

    There are a lot of people on here that can advise you on that, though. I'd recommend looking for someone who's shirtless in their profile pic.
    I assumed that as you become more fitter you get more efficient with the same calories... This looks (from what you say) wrong.

    I think there is some increase in efficiency, but not a big one relative to total burn, especially with long sessions. I believe that most of the people that think they're burning less as they get more fit are basing that on their HRMs. My weight loss has been steady, just using the MFP database to estimate my burns, even though my heart rate is rarely over 140 now.

    I estimated my 6 mile run yesterday at 741 calories for just under an hour. To be sure, if I had pushed myself and run it in under 50 minutes I would have burned those calories faster, but it would have been about the same total, since I did the same amount of work.

    I plugged my run into the website you provided and it gave me 691, which is fairly consistent with what the database gave me. I then plugged in what my PR for that distance would be and what my heart rate would be at that effort level (based on previous runs with a HRM) and it gave me 848, which seems a little high to me (almost 18 calories per minute).

    So, if you've gotten more fit, it's certainly possible that you're underestimating your calorie burns. As I said before, though, if you want advice on bulking up, I would seek out someone that enjoys photographing his abdomen.
  • RobynLB
    RobynLB Posts: 617 Member
    Options
    I'm just started manually setting my calorie and entering all my exercise calories as "1" because I think the numbers set by MFP for both my target and my calorie burns are messing up my perception, even though I know they are wrong.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    or this, maybe:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain
  • AmberJo1984
    AmberJo1984 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    I go by what my HRM says. It always seems high to me... but, I still put it down. The thing is... I almost NEVER eat back those calories.... so, I shouldn't be hurting my chances of really losing weight.

Categories